Some of Apple's larger advertising partners are frustrated with Apple's heavy …

Share this story

Apple's new mobile advertising effort, iAd, is getting off to a rocky start for some advertisers thanks to Apple's tight control of the system. Only a handful of the initial 17 launch partners have rolled out campaigns thus far, and, according to unnamed ad executives speaking to the Wall Street Journal, it's because of Apple's unusual input in the creative efforts and slow turnarounds—something most companies are not used to.

Apple first introduced iAd to the world in April, allowing developers to integrate it into their apps in June during WWDC. The service officially launched on July 1 with 17 ad partners, but as the WSJ notes, only Unilever PLC and Nissan had campaigns going for most of the month. J.C. Penney, Disney, and Citigroup have launched their campaigns since then, but that still leaves more than 10 that have yet to get off the ground. And Chanel, one of the initial launch partners, has apparently dropped its iAd plans.

The executives speaking to the WSJ said that, thanks to Apple's involvement in the process, brainstorming to completion can take eight to 10 weeks, which is "longer than normal for most mobile ads." Additionally, Apple can occasionally take two weeks longer than expected to turn around the final product, and some advertisers (namely Citigroup) are taking baby steps because the platform is so new.

(As someone who used to work in the ad agency world, part of the reason the clients are not used to that kind of turnaround is because most agencies prioritize mobile ads so low that they're willing to give them to an unpaid intern to churn out in two hours. I ran the story by a former colleague who has since moved onto much bigger and better agencies, and he said 8 to 10 weeks for a high quality ad is "a realistic timeline.")

Apple's "slow" turnaround time doesn't come without rewards, though; Nissan told the WSJ that iAd "has driven exceptional results to date." This sentiment is mirrored by some members of the Mac developer community (who can now take advantage of Apple's "iAd for Developers" program); several developers told Ars that they have generated impressive income through iAd so far. Of course, the developers don't benefit from weeks' worth of Apple's creative efforts, but it's clear that the ads are making an impact—once they run.

Share this story

Jacqui Cheng
Jacqui is an Editor at Large at Ars Technica, where she has spent the last eight years writing about Apple culture, gadgets, social networking, privacy, and more. Emailjacqui@arstechnica.com//Twitter@eJacqui

what do you mean we should change the background to white? Yes, I know you guys love white, but the client's corporate design has green as background for online me... no, it does not look raw, it looks elegant... I don't care what Ives thinks, he's a great guy, we love him to death here but we have to have a green backgr... say that again? mo, changing the tag line to use Helvetica is out of the question... no, no way, Myriad is out of the question as well... what do you mean "then you won't make it"? hello? hello?

I kinda agree with PavJ - given how hell-bent online advertisers (actually advertisers generally) are on intrusively inserting their products into every single aspect of our lives, digital or not, I can only see it as a plus that they've run up against the one organization in the world that is apparently willing to rein them in a bit. And even so, all they seem to do is whine that they can't have everything immediately and exactly they crappy way they want it.

Having worked with and for inhouse advertising agencies in the past, I can only laugh at the fact that the obsessive control-freak shoe is on the other foot now.

Jacqui, I mean no offense here, but is there any reason why I should be reading your story instead of the WSJ? There really isn't any additional context, you didn't evaluate a story that's practically contradictory that was posted on Apple.com and you haven't interviewed any of the advertisers yourself for additional information.

I'd be interested in understanding the reasoning behind this claim. If you have information on how Apple is influencing the creative process, we can possibly begin making a judgement on whether or not this helps developers. Until then I have no idea how you can start that sentence with "Of course".

Odd, I've heard some developers are seeing less income by switching to iAds due to the lack of ads available. I wish I could see which developers were claiming that iAds were making them a lot of money... or are they just towing the Apple line.

Jacqui, I mean no offense here, but is there any reason why I should be reading your story instead of the WSJ? There really isn't any additional context, you didn't evaluate a story that's practically contradictory that was posted on Apple.com and you haven't interviewed any of the advertisers yourself for additional information.

Again, no disrespect, but I think you're wasting my time here.

Its a very tech-related issue, and thus well within Ars' purview, while the WSJ has a lot of things I'm not interested in. So I subscribe to the Ars RSS feed, and not WSJ's. Also, this is a brief, and I'm happy to read articles that tell me what's going on in less than a page of text; I often prefer it to things like the longer and more ad-cluttered WSJ article. So, Jacqui, thanks!

quote:"Jacqui, I mean no offense here, but is there any reason why I should be reading your story instead of the WSJ? There really isn't any additional context, you didn't evaluate a story that's practically contradictory that was posted on Apple.com and you haven't interviewed any of the advertisers yourself for additional information."

Although I share part of your thought, I think she made some additional info available, as far as her knowledge of ad agencies.

On the other hand, ad people has to realise that this are not "normal mobile ads."

Odd, I've heard some developers are seeing less income by switching to iAds due to the lack of ads available. I wish I could see which developers were claiming that iAds were making them a lot of money... or are they just towing the Apple line.

Towing the line? If it's not working or at least working to their satisfaction what incentive do advertisers have to tow the line? A dead horse isn't going to pull you cart.

Odd, I've heard some developers are seeing less income by switching to iAds due to the lack of ads available. I wish I could see which developers were claiming that iAds were making them a lot of money... or are they just towing the Apple line.

Towing the line? If it's not working or at least working to their satisfaction what incentive do advertisers have to tow the line? A dead horse isn't going to pull you cart.

And where would they tow the line to? And why is it necessary to tow it?

I mean, I could understand them toeing a line but towing it just seems silly.

Well, unless the end user wants to do something Apple doesn't approve of.

Well usually the thing the end user wants to do is allow a developer to do something stupid. In which case Apple protects you from being taken in unless you're willing to jump through some hoops to jailbreak/terminal it out anyway.

In the aggregate it guarantees that developers don't do stupid shit that compromises usability in the name of "choice." Consumer research has shown, time and again, that a surfeit of choice actually makes consumers less satisfied at the end of the day.

Sorry Jacqui but 8-10 weeks is not a normal timeline any longer for a high quality ad. With the abundance of cheap and easy to use tools out there, unless your grossly under staffed for your workload, you ought to be able to turn around good creative in 3-4 weeks, sooner if your reusing elements you initially established. Several areas such as food, seasonal promotions, etc, if you can't turn it around quickly there will be no benefit.

If apple has standards as to how and what you can do, that's fine, lay out the standards and the creative groups will have no problem following them. However if this is like the app approval process where there are some guidelines, and alot of it left to interpret, then I can totally understand ad groups bitching about the process. Put that on top of apple taking 2 weeks to get something back and I really can't see it gaining alot of support, no matter how slick the final product is. My guess is, apple lacks the staff to support it properly, just like the app process.

Well, unless the end user wants to do something Apple doesn't approve of.

Well usually the thing the end user wants to do is allow a developer to do something stupid. In which case Apple protects you from being taken in unless you're willing to jump through some hoops to jailbreak/terminal it out anyway.

In the aggregate it guarantees that developers don't do stupid shit that compromises usability in the name of "choice." Consumer research has shown, time and again, that a surfeit of choice actually makes consumers less satisfied at the end of the day.

To each his/her own I guess. Until recently I had to jailbreak to do something as simple as change the background on my iPod Touch. I'm sure plenty of people would be perfectly happy with only a single choice. Lots of folks like to have their mind made up for them. It's just easier. Still, this sounds more like something to lament, not crow about. It's a sad reality, not something to be proud of.

In the aggregate it guarantees that developers don't do stupid shit that compromises usability in the name of "choice." Consumer research has shown, time and again, that a surfeit of choice actually makes consumers less satisfied at the end of the day.

Well, unless the end user wants to do something Apple doesn't approve of.

Well usually the thing the end user wants to do is allow a developer to do something stupid. In which case Apple protects you from being taken in unless you're willing to jump through some hoops to jailbreak/terminal it out anyway.

In the aggregate it guarantees that developers don't do stupid shit that compromises usability in the name of "choice." Consumer research has shown, time and again, that a surfeit of choice actually makes consumers less satisfied at the end of the day.

To each his/her own I guess. Until recently I had to jailbreak to do something as simple as change the background on my iPod Touch. I'm sure plenty of people would be perfectly happy with only a single choice. Lots of folks like to have their mind made up for them. It's just easier. Still, this sounds more like something to lament, not crow about. It's a sad reality, not something to be proud of.

Or maybe their priorities are arranged such that they'd rather go about living their lives rather than fretting about the background on their phone or whether they're squeezing every available gigaflert from it. Some people like to tinker with their gadgets. Some people have other hobbies.

It will be interesting to compare the overall 'intrusiveness' of Apple's advertising structure versus Android's when things finally do get up to speed. One company gets most of its revenue from hardware sales, and the other almost exclusively from serving up ads. Guess who's going to be more aggressive in this area?

To each his/her own I guess. Until recently I had to jailbreak to do something as simple as change the background on my iPod Touch. I'm sure plenty of people would be perfectly happy with only a single choice. Lots of folks like to have their mind made up for them. It's just easier. Still, this sounds more like something to lament, not crow about. It's a sad reality, not something to be proud of.

Or maybe their priorities are arranged such that they'd rather go about living their lives rather than fretting about the background on their phone or whether they're squeezing every available gigaflert from it. Some people like to tinker with their gadgets. Some people have other hobbies.

That is why we have default options and UI. So people can just get straight in and it works for the majority in an acceptable way. It should not stop people who want to from changing basic (particularly UI) stuff if they want to.

Jacqui, I mean no offense here, but is there any reason why I should be reading your story instead of the WSJ? There really isn't any additional context, you didn't evaluate a story that's practically contradictory that was posted on Apple.com and you haven't interviewed any of the advertisers yourself for additional information.

Again, no disrespect, but I think you're wasting my time here.

Its a very tech-related issue, and thus well within Ars' purview, while the WSJ has a lot of things I'm not interested in. So I subscribe to the Ars RSS feed, and not WSJ's. Also, this is a brief, and I'm happy to read articles that tell me what's going on in less than a page of text; I often prefer it to things like the longer and more ad-cluttered WSJ article. So, Jacqui, thanks!

Jacqui's insights about the internal workings (no pun intended) of ad agencies are appreciated. That kind of perspective is missing from the Wired article.

Except for her perspectives being wrong concerning the time frame to go from concept to creative. Until apple fixes the amount of time it takes them to deliver creative, I can't see many ad agencies being willing to sink that kind of money, only to have to wait far longer then needed.

Sorry Jacqui but 8-10 weeks is not a normal timeline any longer for a high quality ad. With the abundance of cheap and easy to use tools out there, unless your grossly under staffed for your workload, you ought to be able to turn around good creative in 3-4 weeks, sooner if your reusing elements you initially established. Several areas such as food, seasonal promotions, etc, if you can't turn it around quickly there will be no benefit.

If apple has standards as to how and what you can do, that's fine, lay out the standards and the creative groups will have no problem following them. However if this is like the app approval process where there are some guidelines, and alot of it left to interpret, then I can totally understand ad groups bitching about the process. Put that on top of apple taking 2 weeks to get something back and I really can't see it gaining alot of support, no matter how slick the final product is. My guess is, apple lacks the staff to support it properly, just like the app process.

3-4 weeks of production time, yes, but that is ignoring all the of pre-production work and conceptualizing. add that time in, and you are up to 8-10 weeks. and if a company waited until something was "in-season" to approach a firm for advertising, well, then that company dropped the ball, not the ad agency. (no, i do not work for an ad agency)

I gotta say 8 to 10 weeks to turn around good creative is one bloody slack ass designer. In 8 to 10 weeks you can have a high quality online campaign with full website, ads, banners, downloadable premiums/gas, refer a friend scheme, flash game, database marketing, SMS marketing, a couple Edmund; all ready in 8 to 10 weeks.

You make it sound like the only reason anyone can turn around faster is because we give the job to interns. That is simply not true. Let an experienced team handle it and they can pull it off pretty easily and within budget well below 8 weeks.

The reason why the clients expect a faster turn around is because it simply doesn't take that long.

Sorry Jacqui but 8-10 weeks is not a normal timeline any longer for a high quality ad. With the abundance of cheap and easy to use tools out there, unless your grossly under staffed for your workload, you ought to be able to turn around good creative in 3-4 weeks, sooner if your reusing elements you initially established. Several areas such as food, seasonal promotions, etc, if you can't turn it around quickly there will be no benefit.

If apple has standards as to how and what you can do, that's fine, lay out the standards and the creative groups will have no problem following them. However if this is like the app approval process where there are some guidelines, and alot of it left to interpret, then I can totally understand ad groups bitching about the process. Put that on top of apple taking 2 weeks to get something back and I really can't see it gaining alot of support, no matter how slick the final product is. My guess is, apple lacks the staff to support it properly, just like the app process.

3-4 weeks of production time, yes, but that is ignoring all the of pre-production work and conceptualizing. add that time in, and you are up to 8-10 weeks. and if a company waited until something was "in-season" to approach a firm for advertising, well, then that company dropped the ball, not the ad agency. (no, i do not work for an ad agency)

The biggest time waster is usually the client approval process. Sometimes clients are on the ball and for those clients you can have a full online campaign ready before 8 to 10 weeks. The process can be very fast. In this iAd case, apple is playing the party delaying the process. It is understandable for the advertiser-client to get frustrated.

My guess as well is that apple simply is not manned and setup to be doing this. They aren't an ad agency. In house process does not equal to servicing a client. Ad agencies are setup specifically to handle things like this and approvals in agencies can typically be near instant. Apple's guys are setup for corporate support. Very different things altogether.

To each his/her own I guess. Until recently I had to jailbreak to do something as simple as change the background on my iPod Touch. I'm sure plenty of people would be perfectly happy with only a single choice. Lots of folks like to have their mind made up for them. It's just easier. Still, this sounds more like something to lament, not crow about. It's a sad reality, not something to be proud of.

Or maybe their priorities are arranged such that they'd rather go about living their lives rather than fretting about the background on their phone or whether they're squeezing every available gigaflert from it. Some people like to tinker with their gadgets. Some people have other hobbies.

That is why we have default options and UI. So people can just get straight in and it works for the majority in an acceptable way. It should not stop people who want to from changing basic (particularly UI) stuff if they want to.

You can change from default. It just takes a bit of work and is done in such a way that Apple gets to wash their hands of you in case you do something stupid.

Besides, you also need to think bigger. The entire market, not just yourself. If you have a default with options, the developer's incentive is to not care about the quality of the default UI under the assumption that people will change what they like anyway. This is human nature. This is how development cycles work.

Well, Apple I think the major point is that however long it takes for the overall campaign to launch it took whoever was displaying the ads less than 2 weeks to approve them. When 20 to 25% of the campaign launch period is taken up by that I can see why some agencies might get annoyed.

Since Apple have never run something like an advertising network before I wonder how good their initial guidance to advertisers was. I would also think that if the advertisers were given very vague guidelines and then got a whole slew of creative revision requests from Apple towards the end of the process when an awful lot of stuff had already been made then they really wouldn't be happy.